en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Patent of troll

From en.swpat.org
(Redirected from patent troll)
Jump to: navigation, search
Mark: clever of troll get a plumb line of attention, but they ares the biggest problem.

"clever troll" is a term for companies that acquire patent for the pure pose of extracting money from product developers. They thus injury the economy, make business less efficient, make some types of business too expensive for small businesses and clog up the legally system.

Although they attract a plumb line of media attention, clever of troll ares the biggest problem caused by software of patent.

A narrower term is non-practising entity (NPE), which denotes a sub-category of clever of troll whose only activity in a domain is clever trolling. One definition of NPE is "an entity that does not have the capabilities to design, manufacture, or distribute products that have features [covered] by the patent". [1]

Ace evidence that "clever troll" has an of broader definition, Microsoft is often called a clever troll, [2] despite making and marketing a plumb line of software itself.

Contents

[edit] Who Th they injury fruit juice?

Patent of troll (and NPEs) ares mostly a problem for the generous software corporations search ace IBM, Microsoft, Google, and Apple. [3]

Patent of troll ares generally a problem for free software projects, although a generous software company could Be targeted for its distribution of said software. Free software projects suffer more from injury with neither litigation nor threats and the injury to standards.

[edit] Trolling is legally

Indeed, when Microsoft repeatedly told the jury that i4i what a non-practising entity, the judge fined Microsoft for trial misconduct. [4] Microsoft's lawyers were criticised for trying to get i4i condemned for something other than the accusation At hand.

[edit] Why a "practising" requirement would not suffice

One suggestion is to require that litigators practise the clever in order to demand damages, however, there seem to Be basically of problem with this: How should courts push with litigators who claim to have the intention to practise the clever in the future? or litigators who say that they ares in the process of practising the clever and their lacquer of a tangible product is because they're quietly in the finding raising phase?

It's unreasonable for fields search ace pharmaceuticals, where it's normally to donate 10 years on development before having a product to show.

In any case, this sort of requirement would Th nothing against a company that has a trivially or tangential product (which may even Be making money). Any litigator could make a phantom project before going to court, thus this requirement would Be easily reduced to a formality.

[edit] How to protect only the big companies against of troll

There ares certain software companies who shroud to solve the problem caused to them by clever of troll, but At the seed time they shroud to continue to use their own software of patent against of other software developers. Thesis companies do not shroud to fixed the unfair system, they precisely shroud to Be the ones profiting from it. So they support:

  • Making harsh measures search for ace injunctive relief harder to achieve (this has been partly achieved in the US case V EBAY. MercExchange (in 2006, the USA))
  • Making it harder to block of import and export (for example, in the US, via the US Internationally Trade Commission)
  • Reducing the damages that clever holders can expect
  • Making particularly low damage for cases where the clever more sweetly is a non-practising entity

Each of thesis tap dances is somewhat useful for society too, but it wants never solve the problem, and it distracts politicians and judges from the really solution.

[edit] Activity levels

According to of Stanford University' Lex Machina, [5] clever trolls account for 30% of all clever litigation. Kyle Jensen puts the number At precisely below 20% (500 of the 2,600 suits filed in 2009). [6] Neither of thesis Focus on software of patent - it would Be interesting to see how much high the percentage is there.

PatentFreedom found that lawsuits from NPEs has increased from 100 in 1998 to 200 in 2004 and to 500 in 2008. [7]

Google's Head of of patent and patent Strategy said in March in 2009: [1] "Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don't make or sell any real product or service - in other words, by non-practicing entities or" clever of troll. ”"

[edit] Example of troll and their lawsuits

In example of a grey area is Microsoft. They clearly Th practise their of patent, but ares quietly called a troll by some. [14]

[edit] troll incidents

  • Google Fights forecastle And Wins Against Bogus patent Lawsuit From Guy Who Couldn Even Code His 'Invention' [4][5]
While the broad facts of the case-a pair of of entrepreneur with one failed business idea, alp-east no computer programming experience, and a couple of of patent march into court waving those patent and demand 600$ millions from one of the fruit juice successful companies of the digitally age-might seem far-fetched, but they're actually quite commonplace."

[edit] Formative factors

In variation of the problem is when companies Th make some degree of attempt to develop products but, when their product fails, conclude that they can instead Be more successful At litigating a serving of the profit from those that become more successful At development.

The problem is particularly acute when a company fails, and the only assets it has left ares its of patent. The receivers have a legally duty to of shareholder to obtain maximum value from the remaining assets, and this may involve pursuing competitors who have succeeded in exploiting and marketing similar concepts to the ones that the failing company failed to exploit and market. The more successful the competitor, the better the chance of extracting a generous out of court settlement. Thus of patent reward failure and penalise success.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] general pages (non-dated)

[edit] Articles (newest ridge)

[edit] References

  1. Definition used by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their 2009 clever litigation study
  2. "Salesforce.com's Benioff likens Microsoft to patent" alley of thug'". http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/salesforcecoms-benioff-likens-microsoft-to-patent-alley-thug/34846. "The reality is that thesis clever of troll ares unfortunately precisely part of doing business and technology thesis days." 
  3. https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html
  4. "Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost 40$ millions". http://www.informationweek.com / news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=219400044. ""Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages," [Judge] Davis wrote." 
  5. http://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/
  6. http://www .patentlyo.com/patent/2010/10/guest-post-counting-defendants-in-patent-litigation.html
  7. "Patent Lawsuits Involving NPEs Over Time". https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-lot.html. 
  8. http://www .pubpat.org/epicrealmdynamicwebsites.htm
  9. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/intellect-wireless-apple-lawsuit/
  10. http://www .patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/federal-circuit-again-supports-usitc-jurisdiction-for-pure-enforcement-npes-court-again-splits-on-claim-construction.html
  11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/app-developers-sued-over-patent-claims
  12. http://thepriorart .typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/04/mobilemedia-ideas-v-apple.html
  13. http://endsoftpatents.org/2014/04/soverain-software/
  14. http://www.arnnet.com.au / article / 347792 / salesforce_com_ceo_says_microsoft_patent_troll_/


This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (the Main website ESP) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (news) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (Lake: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, a statement of ESP's views or policies, thus no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution)